Newsgroups: sci.psychology.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!news.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!torn!tortoise.oise.on.ca!tortoise!dyeo
From: David Yeo <dyeo@tortoise>
Subject: Re: Heisenberg: was he blind? 
In-Reply-To: <5du2u4$75a@ux.cs.niu.edu> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970213083931.8264D-100000@tortoise>
Sender: news@oise.on.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: tortoise
Organization: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
References: <5dth3u$hdb$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu> <855798474snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <5du2u4$75a@ux.cs.niu.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:55:39 GMT
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.psychology.theory:6199 comp.ai.philosophy:52048 comp.ai:44213

On 12 Feb 1997, Neil Rickert wrote:

> In <855798474snz@longley.demon.co.uk> David@longley.demon.co.uk (David Longley) writes:
> 
> >In  the early decades of the century, Schlick defined  philosophy 
> >as  the analysis of meaning and science as the pursuit of  truth. 
> 
> Like many philosophers before him and many later, Schlick was
> mistaken.  As Oliver posted recently
>
> 	Loud and clear from the floor and the podium came the message
> 	that science is a method for exploring uncertainty; it
> 	delivers better models and not revealed truth;
>

How is "better" to be defined if not with respect to the pursuit of truth? 

>
> >Whilst  I  wouldn't  go  as far as  saying  that  one  can  never 
> >ascertain truth from argument, I think it's accurate to say  that 
> >"truth"  or  "falsehood" are functions of  statements  about  the 
> >world,  and that we pursue these statements on the  grounds  that 
> >they allow us to better predict the world.
> 
> >"Water  is  h20" 'is true', "gold dissolves in water"  is  false. 
> 
> Your examples refute your claim.  "Water is H2O" is not a statement
> about the world.  It is a statement about the relationship of the
> world to the terms of our scientific theories.  Unavoidably, data is
> theory laden.
>

This objection seems rather pedantic. 

How can "a statement about the relationship of the world to [anything]"
not be a statement about the world?  

Cheers,

- David Yeo (Applied Cognitive Science, University of Toronto)


